会计英语论文题目

题目不要太大，也不要太小，太大了面太广容易泛泛，小了就无材料可查，没东西可写。写你熟悉的 资料好查的 参考

.好.多学习讥构比如:ABC天卞英语中心 都会先让你做个英语测试，很喜欢这里的老师，客服都很热心，我觉得在线的方式性介比较高，你也可以找几个了解一下吧..

会计标准的制定过程被看作是一个政治活动，因为不仅影响标准的制定并且因为这种影响 ，导致标准对很多的利益群体有不同影响。要求：在澳大利亚接受国际财政报告标准的背景下，评估以上所述的内容。值得注意的是 and 后面是 because of the impact 作为一个整体原因状语出现的 the resulting standards have on a wide variety of interest groups才是真正的and 连接的主句

关于英语专业的论文题目，学术堂整理了十五个好写的，供大家参考：1．《红字》中海丝特 白兰不理智的一面（The Irrational Side of Hester Prynne of The Scarlet Letter）2. 《董贝父子》中的矛盾冲突（The Conflict in Donbey and Son）3. 论文化不同对联想意义及翻译的影响（On Influence of Cultural Differences on Associative Meanings and Translation）4. 美国教育的衰弱（The Drop of American Education）5. 19世纪欧洲移民对美国工业化的积极影响（The Positive Impacts of European Immigration on American Industrialization in the 19th Century。6. 朱丽叶之人物分析（Character Studies in Juliet）7. 主述理论在文学中的运用（The Application of the Thematic Theory in Literature）8. 语用学中的会话含义理论（Conversational Implicature Theory in Pragmatics）9. 英语语音简析及对提高初学者口语的指导（A Brief Analysis of English Phonetics as well as a Guide to Improve Learners’ Oral English）10. 比较两种对于哈姆雷特复仇的评论（Comparison on Two Kinds of Comments on Hamlet’s Revenge）11. 英语语言中的性别歧视 (Sexism in English Language)12. 英语的学与教 (English Learning and Teaching)13. 由美国2004年总统选举所想到的 (More than 2004 Presidential Election)14. 论腐朽世界中的纯洁品质——关于《雾都孤儿》的赏析 (The Purity in a Corrupt World—An Analysis of Oliver Twister)15. 论理智与情感之关系——对《理智与情感》的人物分析

Accounting, the Environment and Sustainability（会计、环境与可持续发展） Sustainability relates to both present and future generations. It is discuss that the needs of all peoples are met. Those needs are both social and environmental. The link between accounting and environmental degradation is well-established in the literature (see, for example, Eden, 1996; Gray et all 1993). The crucial point is that accounting which takes the business agenda as given should include much environmental and social accounting. Thus, central to any discussion of accounting and the environment is a basic, challenging, and deeply unsettling question: do we believe that the organizations which accounting serves and supports can deliver environmental security and sustainability? At the same time as the technical implementation of social accounting and reporting has been developing the philosophical basis for such accounting has also been developed. Thus, Benston (1982, 1984) and Schreuder and Ramanathan (1984) consider the extent to which accountants should be involved in this accounting. Donaldson (1982) argues that such accounting can be justified by means of the social contract as benefiting society at large. Batley and Tozer (1990) and Geno (1995) have argued that “sustainability” is the “cornerstone” of environmental accounting. 6. Social and Environmental Reporting（社会与环境报告） The questions of how business should report its social performance and how that performance should be assessed have been dominant themes in the social accounting literature (Gray et al, 1996) and the social issues in management literature (Wood 1991) over the past decade. We are now witnessing both a number of initiatives that seek to set guidelines or standards for social accounting, for example the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). If there is one area which accounting researchers have embraced with enthusiasm it is the phenomenal growth in environmental reporting by organizations. The research in this area has been dominated, initially at any rate, primarily by studies descriptive in orientation. Such studies typically employ some variant of content analysis (see, for example, Milne and Adler, 1999; Gray et all, 1995). Both country specific studies and comparative studies have recorded an upward trend in environmental disclosure both through the annual report and through stand-alone environmental reports. However, analyses of the phenomenon ( Hackston and Milne1996; Fekrat et al1996; Pava and Krause 1996 ; Adams et al 1998) confirm that such reporting is principally restricted to the very largest companies and is, to a degree at least, country and industry variant. Research into environmental disclosure is developing rapidly with examinations of the impact of pressure groups (Tilt, 1994) and other external forces (Gray et all, 1995; Deegan and Gordon, 1996), exploration of user’s needs (Epstein and Freedman, 1994; Deegan and Rankin, 1997), focus on particular aspects of reporting such as environmental policies (Tilt, 1997), exploration of the truthfulness of environmental disclosure (Deegan and Rankin, 1996) and much needed theoretical development (see, for example, Patten, 1992; Roberts, 1992; Gray et al, 1995, Buhr, 1998; Adams et al, 1998; Brown and Deegan, 1998; Neu et all, 1998). Environmental reporting takes place in a predominantly voluntary regime and with the continuing interest in voluntary guidelines for such reporting (see, for example, KPMG 1997), such survey of practice are crucial in keeping attention focused on the doubtful quality and, especially, the global paucity of such reporting. If environmental reporting is important (for social accountability reasons even if it is of dubious “financial user need” value) then the predominant view of business – that environmental reporting is adequate in voluntary regime – must be challenged. Whilst the early research into environmental disclosure appeared to be so delighted that any such disclosure was taking place, this acquiescence has given way to a more critical analysis of practice. This analysis, primarily informed by the “critical school” (Laughlin, 1999), comprises three main themes. The first two of these themes are, in essence, the same critique made of social accounting. First, accounts of any kind are necessarily partial and biased constructions of a complex world. Not only do such constructions, by making some things visible, make other things invisible (Broadbent, 1994) but they are most likely to limit and even destroy the essential nature of the thing accounted for. (See, for example, Maunders and Burritt, 1991; Maunders, 1996; Cooper, 1992; Johnson, 1998). Second, the critical theorist would argue that environmental reporting is voluntary activity it can only reflect those aspects of environmental performance which organizations are willing to release. It can, therefore, only be a legitimation device and not an accountability mechanism. Consequently, the critical theorist argue, environmental accounting- including environmental reporting- is almost certain to do more environmental harm than it does good. These two themes are now developing into an important – if, as yet, unresolved – theoretical debate which seeks to counter the inherent managerialism of most accounting (and environmental accounting) research. The final theme in the critique of environmental disclosure develops the issue of the voluntary nature of environmental disclosure and brings a much-needed re-assessment of the importance and role of law in the construction of society. Specifically, Gallhofer and Haslam (1997) could be taken to use researchers’ views on the role of regulation in governing environmental reporting as an indicator of the researcher’s managerialist or alternative perspective. In essence, a non-managerialist environmental reporting would have to challenge an organization’s legitimacy and, in particular, the legitimacy of the means by which it earned the reported profit and gained its growth. The critical challenges to environmental reporting are not ill-founded when they remark that too little environmental reporting research examines this question to any substantial degree. One of the more inexplicable, although exceptionally welcome, consequences of the growing environmental agenda has been the re- emergence of a serious interest in social accounting. This is not the place to try and review, in any detail, the broad social accounting literature (see, for example, Gray et al 1996) – although a few general observations seems opposite. Social Accounting had its principal heyday in the 1970s but, although some researchers maintained an active interest in the field, it virtually disappeared from the popular consciousness of accounting academe during the 1980s and 1990s. Its re-emergence seems to be a response to a number of factors. One such factor seems to be the recognition that separation of environmental from social issues is difficult at best and pernicious at worst. As environmental issues are explored more carefully, the underlying implications for employment, communities, health and safety and even the organization’s very posture on ethics and social responsibility inevitably resurface. Equally, corporate practice has re-discovered social accounting and when organizations as diverse as Ben and Jerry’s, the Body Shop and Shell commit to social accounting, the wider business community begins to take notice. Finally, as we shall see, the environmental debate leads us inexorably towards discussions of sustainability. Such discussions must, by definition, embrace social accounting matters. The recent research literature on social accounting is still a little sparse but examples exist. The Adams/Roberts project has maintained a focus across both social and environmental disclosure (see, for example, Adams et al, 1998; Gray et al 1995; Hackston and Milne, 1996). Work by Roberts (1992), Pinkston and Carroll (1996), Patten (1995), Epstein and Freedman (1994), Mathews (1995) and Robertson & Nicholson (1996) continues to keep the social responsibility accounting debate moving forward whilst simultaneously, we are starting to see a re-emergence of normative work designed to guide how social accounting might be accomplished and what it might look like (See, Zadek et al, 1997; Gray et al, 1997; Gonella et al, 1998).

我是在VIP英语论文找他们帮忙的，半个月的时间就帮我搞定了，之后导师要什么参考文献，数据演示和截图，他们都给我搞好了，觉得服务挺周到的，呵呵wqtedlmapz